Perhaps this is a silly personal pet peeve, and lord knows it’s the least of Politico’s sins. But if I see this headline, I want to read an account of Sarah Palin flooring Peggy Noonan with an uppercut to the jaw. (It would also be cool if Noonan rose up from the mat, kneed Palin in the cooch and executed a pile-driver.)

That’s what “hit” means, not opening up a rarely closed piehole and letting more stupid dribble out. I also hate the term “baby bump,” but in defense of those who use it, there aren’t that many short, snappy substitutes. The same cannot be said of “hit” used in the context above: insults, taunts, heckles, jeers, etc. — all better choices, Mr. Byers.

If you were Language Emperor, what common expressions or usages would you banish from the English language?

Usually used as a stipulation to get to the writer’s main point, I grate at some of the more arguable claims that they want stipulated simply to make some point. “Bill Mumy, arguably one of the greatest child actors in history, yadda yadda yadda …” All apologies to the kind and decent Mr. Mumy, but the author might need a better platform to launch their point. Or spend some of their 800 words or less arguing why they make such a claim.

Watch for the lazy “arguably.” See how often you want to argue with them.

No, that one I find useful. It’s a shorthand way of explaining to self-involved drama-queen junior managers under me that the world is not going to either remake itself to their preferences or suddenly change recent history because its embarrassing.
If you’re embarrassed by your mistakes, own up to them quickly, because they aren’t going to get any easier to discuss with age.

Must admit, I’m also rather tired of the proverbial bus with people entangled in its undercarriage. More because it’s lazily over-used along the lines of Vivaldi’s Four Seasons but without the underlying robust quality.

If I never saw “also, too” on this blog again, that would be nice. It was mildly humorous the first 10,000 times. Now it just means Palin has burrowed into your brain like a virus—mad cow disease, say. Think about that.

What Terry Pratchett called “wallpaper words”: clearly, obviously, certainly when they’re used to wallpaper over a big hole in your argument. As TP said, when you see one of those, stop a moment and think – odds are the assumption is not clear, obvious, or certain.

This is, without any doubt, the worst not completely offensive word in all of english (unlike that certain racist name for darker skin colored (really, your spell check want’s the UK spelling!?) people – that’d be my first pick if racist names are to be selected): nerd.

These smart and hard working kids/teens/young adults are our best and brightest as well as being our best hope to improve human kind and what do people call the very best of our youth – nerds! That needs to be removed as well as that other word (ok, I picked two.)

If enforced, that would eliminate about 95% of all slang used by white people. For example, “cool” would be entirely gone, which would wipe out a high percentage of white slang right there. From the Online Etymology Dictionary: “Slang use for ‘fashionable’ is 1933, originally Black English; modern use as a general term of approval is from late 1940s, probably from bop talk and originally in reference to a style of jazz; said to have been popularized in jazz circles by tenor saxophonist Lester Young.”

When I was in the fifth grade, I had a teacher say she wanted the homework “in complete sentences”. I swore she said “incomplete”, so I went out of my way to do my homework in sentence fragments. My arguments on following her instructions of writing “incomplete” sentences didn’t help my grade.

@Calming Influence: Can we keep one swell foop though? Hardly anyone seems to remember what a fell swoop really means anymore in its constituent parts. At least the swell foopiness variant is very clear about the probably isn’t going to happen that way use of the general concept.

“Sarah Palin hits Peggy Noonan” — that headline is so Dynasty. “Quit Shit Hits Lit Twit” is so much punchier, but it’s also very Variety.

Were I to become Maharaja Bahasa Inggeris, I would banish from my realm those who think the noun of “admonish” is “admonishment” and not “admonition”; speak of “n-month anniversaries” (an anniversary is the passing of a whole year, goshdamnit!) or “n-year anniversary” (redundant! You say “the nth anniversary”); or use any expression characteristic of MBA-speak; gripe about the nouning of verbs or the verbing of nouns (way too late for that now).

@Cermet: Slightly OT, but at my niece’s kid’s elementary school in techie Washington (Boeing-MS territory) they had a “dress like a nerd day.” Her husband called the school and asked when they were going to have “slut” and “jock” days (he claimed, he did; I think he just told them it was a terrible idea, he and his wife are both engineers, etc.).

My theory about American education is that it’s lousy because people don’t really believe in education, as evinced by their disdain for smart kids and glorification of jocks.

To “print out” or “print off” instead of “print.”
The ridiculous “sign off on” instead of “sign.”
To begin the answer to every question, “So…” “So” is the new “Ummm.”
Did anyone suggest “at the end of the day”?

I don’t want to see the news media referring to a criminal suspect as a ‘shooter’. It sounds like they’re trying to affect a military or law enforcement point of view. The term is compact and efficient but too much like specialized jargon to be used by the media.

As an engineer, I hate the use of “impact” to mean “effect”. Impact is the collision of two or more bodies in space. The collision did not have an impact, the collision was the impact and it had an effect on the bodies being impacted.

The phrase “The American people,” should be forever banished. Those who use it try to imply that they’re speaking for the American people. Actually, “the American people” for whom they’re speaking are generally the chorus of voices inside their own heads.

People saying “try and do something”, ESPECIALLY when it’s a news site or other edited work. (it’s supposed to be “try to do something”).
And yes, I also hate when people use “literally” to refer to something that isn’t literal, like Lindsey saying “the world is literally about to blow up”. If you want to see a world literally blow up, watch Man of Steel. Other than that, it ain’t literal.

Any use of “beg the question” that doesn’t connote an actual petitio principii

“Seamless”

“…at worst.” This requires some explanation: When you say “that argument is moronic at best,” you’ve said enough. You don’t need to go on to add what it is “at worst”; to do so always renders your point rhetorically weak (e.g “moronic at best, and disingenuous at worst”—you’ve just set a limit on how bad your opponent’s argument can stink. If you must provide a contrast, say something like “…and probably specious.”)

Oh, and politicians saying ‘dollars’ when they mean money or funding. Always makes me think of stacks of currency, which is the wrong association when you’re talking about a block grant or a business investment.

@inventor: Well, you’ll love “impactful” and “impactfully” which have arrived in business-bureaucrat-speak. The non-prescriptivist folks are already accepting it though it’s like fingernails on a blackboard (there’s an out of date one) to me.

If I was a reporter covering the movie industry, I would probably be arrested pretty quickly for slapping everyone who used the word “journey” to describe their life/work/character/lunch. On the other hand, someone really should start slapping, because that thing is completely out of hand.

I would also love it if Americans would stop saying “at this point in time”. “At this point” will do nicely, thanks.

As a former newspaper copy editor (and it’s copy editors who write the headlines), I can attest that “hit” is often used because it’s only 2 counts. (Lower-case i’s and t’s are skinny and only take up half a space.) I hated using it as a synonym for “criticize” however, so if I was tight on the headline count (which is usually the case), I’d use “blast” instead, which is 4 counts. The sad thing is that it looks to me like Politico is using a flush-center headline format that would allow several more counts and probably would have accommodated “criticize,” which is really the correct word. But I guess it didn’t seem snappy enough to the editor.

And news organizations by and large nowadays think that editors are an unnecessary luxury.

@David in NY: In the same vein, the word ‘revolution’ should be shelved unless actually talking about something revolutionary. A ‘revolution’ in shaving’ (as one commercial stated) isn’t likely particularly revolutionary if it still involves blades and cutting whiskers.

I”m with tbone on “Is is what it is.” For similar reasons, “Life isn’t fair,” which always seems to said in a gleeful way meaning “I got mine, sucks for you.”

And I’ve been wishing for about 20 years that the term “politically correct” would die. It always turns out to mean “presumes to hold an opinion that doesn’t match mine,” and/or “called me on some racist/sexist/homophobic crap that I can’t otherwise defend.”

@Roger Moore : Right on! A “significant” thing, properly considered, is significant of something; i.e., something is being signified. Modern usage obliterates this & gives us one more completely unnecessary synonym.

David Brooks was IIRC the first person I saw use it. If it isn’t his, I’m guessing it was the title of a session at an Aspen Institute conference.

Specifically in politics, the words that drive me crazy, along the OP’s lines, are “attack” and “demonize”. Every criticism is an “attack”, every time you point out the actual consequences of a policy, you’re “demonizing” the person who proposed it.

I was invited to a party when I was in junior high. The invitation said “Informal dress.” Of course I read it as “In formal dress,” and was the only person there in party clothes. That stings when you’re 12 years old, or at least it did in 1954.

@YellowJournalism: I’m pretty sure “abortion/abortive” in the pejorative sense precedes the use of “abortion” to mean a terminated pregnancy. It’s definitely not any kind of metaphor based on/referring to a terminated pregnancy.

It makes sense in corporate-speak, though. When you “sign off on” something, you’re not literally affixing your signature to a piece of paper. You’re giving someone permission to move ahead on a project.

These are meaningless noises he makes to allow his thoughts to catch up with his mouth.

Those meaningless noises also serve as a way of maintaining his hold on the conversational thread. If he paused to gather his thoughts, somebody else might mistakenly believe he was finished and butt in. That makes them more acceptable in speech than in writing.

Not necessarily — I’m wearing a “hoodie” that has two pockets. And a zipper. Hoodie may have originally meant “hooded pullover sweatshirt with a kangaroo-style pocket in front,” but it’s expanded out to mean any hooded sweatshirt (or hooded t-shirt, these days).

1- Betty, I’m so happy I’m not alone in loathing “baby bump”!
2 – Think of “I could care less” as leaving out the rest of the sentence, “but it’s hard to see how.”
3 – “They” is the appropriate gender-neutral pronoun for a singular antecedent. It’s natural, unlike “hir” and “hem” and all the other stupid attempts to produce a newfangled one. (And I think words like “newfangled” and “blithering” and “pecksniffery” ought to come back into style!)
4 – We call “journey” the J-word around our house. Talk about pretentious….
5 – If I never hear anyone say, “I’d like to share my thoughts with you” again, it’ll be too soon — especially when their thought is, “Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?”, to which the only correct response is, “Sure, as soon as he gets in line behind my personal trainer, my personal dogwalker, and my personal manicurist.”

@Joey Giraud: I seem to recall that the guy behind the Boston bombing has been charged with use of “weapons of mass destruction”? If that term now includes anything that can explode, I guess Saddam had WMD’s after all.

I do that sort of thing with my poor hearing. I once had a cashier in conversation ask me if I’d seen the nudist play at Sea World.
The WHAT now?
The nudist play, she said again.
At which point my partner, understanding both what she said and what I heard, leaned close and said clearly, Honey – there is a New. Display. At Sea World.
Oh.

I said to someone in my one-horse town, “I heard we’re going to get a tapas place downtown.” She (a nice middle-aged lady) said, “Oh, we already have one! My sons go there all the time!” She thought I was all excited about our first “topless place.”

Hurrah, Betty! I’ve hated “hit” in headlines for decades. Only low-rent editors allow it. I’d bet it originates in newspaper headline copyfitting conventions, but that’s no excuse for any editor who has a mastery of the “synonym” concept.

@Mnemosyne: Why couldn’t I just say “sweatshirt”? Does anybody—ANYBODY—care whether it has a hood? What’s next, are we gonna give them special names depending on what color they are? Whether they’re lined or not? WHERE DOES IT END?

More of my gripes: People who can’t tell when to use “who” and when to use “whom” in a relative clause — is it that hard to understand the difference between a subject and an object? The English habit of saying “I was sat …” instead of “I was seated …”.

This gets on my nerves, too, because the speaker is generally not promising to shut up but rather wants everyone else to stop.

In the same kind of situation, I also hate “blah blah blah… Think about it.” As if what has been said is so subtle and insightful that I will need some time to fully grasp it. Please. (Now someone else will object to “Please.”)

As Language Emperor, I would decree that business people speak in ordinary language, for example, not to attach “-ize” to words like “product” and “incentive” for a patina of complexity, and that sports commentators basically stop commenting.

At work, one of the accuracy control people came up to me and asked if one of my co-workers named ‘Morales’ spoke English*.
My reply was that she speaks better English than I do, and I was only half kidding.

*It’s a fair question because we have a lot of hispanics in the plant who barely speak English.

Pronouncing foreign words or phrases that have been anglicized in the accent of the language they’re derived from.

The reason this bugs me is, people who do it think they’re correct to do it. The one thing it isn’t is correct. It may be cute; it may be impressive; it may—who am I to say?—be pretentious and insufferable and boot-to-the-jaw-inviting; but the one thing it is not is correct.

One example out of a billion: “ukelele” is an English word. It is an English word, in the English lexicon, with an English pronunciation, regardless of the fact that it derives from a Hawaiian word that’s pronounced oo-ka-leh-leh. If you pronounce it oo-ka-leh-leh when speaking English, you’re NOT pronouncing it correctly; you’re lapsing into another tongue.

(This, incidentally, is what annoys me about the whole “espresso-expresso” shitshow: Expresso was for decades, and should still be, a perfectly correct anglicisation of the Italian espresso, but a bunch of 1980s coffee snob idiots who were clueless enough to mistake their predilection for dropping European words & phrases for correct English have convinced at least 2 generations of shitheads that their bad English is good English.)

Late to jump in, but I’d like to banish the word ‘robust’. I never noticed the word until Norm Coleman started using it in every other sentence. Then I started noticing how often it was used and how it was used, and it seemed to be used most often when things were totally in the shitter. It’s almost always a BS alert.

“Absolutely”. I hear this word used a lot as the answer to a leading question in an interview, replacing a simple “yes” for emphasis. (The temptation to not continue and leave the interviewer hanging would be almost irresistible to me).

Another word that often does not mean what the speaker thinks it means is “literally”. I literally can’t count the number of times I’ve heard it misused.

“Controversial” as a way to soft-pedal assholish policy while invoking Both Sides Do It. Example:

“Today, House Republicans unveiled a controversial bill that would force poverty-stricken schoolchildren to survive a gladiatorial combat tournament before receiving proper food benefits. Democratic leaders denounced the idea as ‘an unthinkable, barbaric bloodsport’; however, GOP officials say their proposal would help create jobs and bring a much-needed boost to local economies.”

The other lazy media buzzword I’d place a moratorium on would be “legacy.”

I would so banish the us of “he / she was like” to introduce a direct quote.

I understand that such devices are natural occurrences in language evolution. In fact, “he / she goes” has been around longer and serves the same function, to introduce a direct quote.

But this one particularly just grates me raw. It just sounds ignorant and illiterate.

Sadly, I am half way through ‘Trask’s Historical Linguistiecs” Second Edition, and this was discussed in one of the chapters I just finished, and the authors state their fear that the usage may have entrenched itself to the point it will become acceptable standard English usage.

In which case, it is another sign of the End Times, and we are all doomed.

I found one source stating the following in regard to this construction:

The OED’s earliest citation is dated 1982. It is from Frank Zappa’s song ‘Valley Girl’, which has the line ‘She’s like Oh my God.’ The entry is for to be like, and it is described as colloquial and of US origin and as being ‘used to report direct speech (often paraphrased, interpreted, or imagined speech expressing a reaction, attitude, emotion, etc.); to say, utter; (also) to say to oneself.’

Haven’t read the thread yet, so I might be repeating somebody else, but:
This may have already died out on its own, but “business solutions” when what is meant is “I sell copier toner.” (I have seen the variant “business solutioning” which is considerably worse.)

And the phrase “assless chaps.” If they weren’t assless, they would just be pants. The asslessness is the biggest defining feature that distinguishes them from pants.

I would rid the world of “left-wing”, “right-wing”, and all of their variants. Without defining the axes of the equation, the terms are meaningless, and the only point there is to describing a person as left-of-centre, or the U.S. as “a centre-right nation” is to delegitimize the people on the “wrong” side.

@Amir Khalid:
I think what he’s objecting to is a sort of de-anglicization, where people use the original, foreign pronunciation and/or spelling for a word that has been anglicized. It’s usually a pretentious attempt by the speaker to prove his sophistication.

Sometimes people even do it wrong, taking a foreign word that’s naturally easy for English speakers to pronounce and giving it an incorrect, “more foreign-sounding” pronunciation in the mistaken belief that we’ve anglicized it. The one I can most easily think of is people incorrectly using “habañero” instead of “habanero”. Habaneros are actually named for Havana, which does not have a “ñ”, but people draw an incorrect analogy from the anglicization of “jalapeño” to “jalapeno”.

One example out of a billion: “ukelele” is an English word. It is an English word, in the English lexicon, with an English pronunciation, regardless of the fact that it derives from a Hawaiian word that’s pronounced oo-ka-leh-leh. If you pronounce it oo-ka-leh-leh when speaking English, you’re NOT pronouncing it correctly; you’re lapsing into another tongue.

@efgoldman:
Howdy. Nice to be back. Omaha this week, then that place I forget the name of where they make caskets for 2 days. Next week Greenville SC.
But I’ll always come home to BJ.
My new project on digitizing vinyl records should be coming out in a few weeks.

You using one of the available USB turntables, or did you build your own?

I designed a phono/RIAA preamp circuit optimized to interface with a computer line input. It goes between a computer and an ordinary turntable. That was the easy part. Writing up the construction details and photographing the whole thing was grueling.

ETA: Of course, the other question is: Should it be “as is ‘data’” or “as are ‘data’”?
ETA2: Which then leads to another question: Should “anal-retentive” be hyphenated?

“As is data” is correct when speaking about the word “data.” If you are speaking about multiple data points, then “as are (the) data.” could be correct, depending on what exactly you are trying to say.

As for anal-retentive, this is usually used as an adjective before a noun, so, yes, it should be hyphenated (e.g., “He was an anal-retentive man.” When using “anal-retentive” as a noun or predicate adjective, almost always “retentive” would be dropped (e.g., “He was always anal.”) so there wouldn’t be a situation to not have it hyphenated.

But, for what it’s (or “its,” for some of y’all), “anal retentive” – hyphen or not – is not a noun. Some may use it that way, but some also say “literally” when they mean “figuratively,” and say “bemused” when they mean “amused.”

“Statement” anything, as in statement necklace, statement sweater, fashion blogs are particularly guilty of this. Using singular instead of plural, as in statement lip, smoky eye and so on. Also, curating for choosing clothes, all of us get dressed, you are not an art gallery or a museum, get over yourself.
Grown women writing in the voice of a 15 year old, using words like delish and yummo. Not cute.

“Back in the day” (although he didn’t have a literally paradigmatic baby bump) I had a T-shirt with the question: “Is anal-retentive hyphenated?” The responses generally fell into one of three categories:
1) Confused/quizzical look
2) Laughs
3) Stopping to argue as to whether it should/shouldn’t

@Amir Khalid:
When I come across Malay loan words in English, I cringe a little inside when I hear an Anglicised pronunciation, or even one with too foreign an accent. The spelling of amuk as “amuck”, with the corresponding (mis)pronunciation that rhymes with the English word “muck”, really bugs me. As does Stephen Fry, in a book on verse, spelling pantun “pantoum”. And the American pronunciation of parang. I expect Malay words to be pronounced as Malay words.

An old friend now owns a successful eyewear boutique in boutiqueland. She spells lens as ‘lense’. I don’t know if this is special optometry terminology or just an affectation. In either case, it’s a real clanger on the page.

If you pronounce it oo-ka-leh-leh when speaking English, you’re NOT pronouncing it correctly; you’re lapsing into another tongue.

So? Free country, innit?

What if you are Hawaiian? You’re “lapsing into” your own tongue. Which is fine, except to bigots. (“Thizziz ‘MURICA! We speak English!”)

What if you’re Anglo, but learning ukulele from a Hawaiian? What if you’re somewhere where the pronunciation is disputed? (Example: Manchaca, a major street in Austin, is pronounced “Man-shack” by many Anglos. Not by Chicanos, though, and personally I’m fine with “Manchaca.”)

You’re stretching the definition of a loan word there, so much so as to obliterate the distinction between German and English. Yes, Mutter and mother are cognates with a shared origin; but while they mean the same thing, they are not the same word. Not any more, not after so many centuries of divergence between German and English.

I think what he’s objecting to is a sort of de-anglicization, where people use the original, foreign pronunciation and/or spelling for a word that has been anglicized. It’s usually a pretentious attempt by the speaker to prove his sophistication.

Me (the paragraph you quoted):

One example out of a billion: “ukelele” is an English word. It is an English word, in the English lexicon, with an English pronunciation, regardless of the fact that it derives from a Hawaiian word that’s pronounced oo-ka-leh-leh. If you pronounce it oo-ka-leh-leh when speaking English, you’re NOT pronouncing it correctly; you’re lapsing into another tongue.

If the sharks are starting to eat each other, that’s good news. Perhaps Peggy Noonan will someday be brought to justice on criminal conspiracy charges for her role in aiding and abetting the vast 8-year-long crime spree misnamed the Reagan administration.

@Rex Everything: Yes, you’re right, that’s a distinct possibility, but it’s not certain — it could also have come into mediæval English from early German mosica; or directly from Latin musica; or from all three. (And all these paths can be traced back to the Greek for “muse.”)

Also, “school” is not ours from German; it comes to us from Latin. And “water” could not have come from wasser; it probably came from the older watar. And the same with “mother”: not from mutter but probably from the earlier mothær.

Also, not a linguistic point but included just for completeness: the ukelele (the instrument) is not indigenous to Hawaii; it is itself an import that has evolved.

But those are details. Here’s where this began, with your “VERY BIGGEST PET PEEVE lately”:

Pronouncing foreign words or phrases that have been anglicized in the accent of the language they’re derived from.

And Amir Khalid‘s response:

I don’t agree that it’s wrong to pronounce a loan-word the way it’s pronounced in its original language. After all, it’s the Anglicised pronunciation that is incorrect.

Both interesting comments. On the one hand, there are people, allegedly speaking English, who pronounce café as if it were caff. No matter our respective views on the pronunciation of loan-words, I think we can all agree that this sort of thing is simply grotesque. Similarly, Amir Khalid, being bi-lingual, finds the American (or anglicized) pronunciation of sarong somewhat disgusting. On the other hand, you ask about (for example) music. Well, when it started out as a loan-word in English, it was not pronounced the way we pronounce it now. It was pronounced self-consciously in the accent of the language(s) from which it was borrowed (see above) — but modal pronunciations evolve, and clinging to a (e.g.) French pronunciation of music today, while trying to speak English, would be silly (or something done for effect).

So in a way, you’re both right: it’s a matter of time, i.e., how long ago a word was adopted.

As for your primary (or, at least, most energetic) example:

(This, incidentally, is what annoys me about the whole “espresso-expresso” shitshow: Expresso was for decades, and should still be, a perfectly correct anglicisation of the Italian espresso, but a bunch of 1980s coffee snob idiots who were clueless enough to mistake their predilection for dropping European words & phrases for correct English have convinced at least 2 generations of shitheads that their bad English is good English.)

I won’t say this verges on xenophobia — nor will I say I’m one of those espresso drinkers who found expresso illiterate when it emerged in the late ’50s — but in this case can’t we just declare that there are two variant pronunciations (and spellings) and let the “better” one win out over time? Or do you object to this?

MYSELF!!! Can the abuse of this fine word stop?? Why can’t people tell the difference between subjective and onjective pronouns? As in “Bill and myself will go to eat” or “please comment and send the proposal back to Jim and myself”. What is wrong with “I” and “me”??

Comments are closed.

Get Involved!

It takes just 5 minutes, twice a week:

Make a call
Send an email
Send a postcard or fax
Make your voice heard!

For both local and national numbers, recommended scripts and approaches: